yup! he'd best get to nominating tho the senate can approve or deny once the president selects an appointee and this senate's mo has typically been "do their best to make sure that obama can't get jack done at all" thru p much his entire term so they can theoretically draw the process out if they want.

You want to know the future, love? Then wait:I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

morriswalters wrote:Mitch is having kittens, and liberals are hopeful. And for the person I will not name the President proposes and the Senate disposes.

Why would he have kittens? He can stall until November, then reconsider his options based on the elections. Unless Obama selects a Manchurian Republican judge, it will be filibustered. Now if scalia croaked before the last mid terms, then he would freak out.

Officially, Obama has almost a year, I see no reason not to let him have the appointment. Politically, Obama should still set it and not risk Clinton losing, aka 5-4 conservative judges for a long time. Country can barely support the current balance we have now. Judges are throwing away any pretense of logical thinking in exchange for scoring political victories.

The Senate Republicans are currently saying that they think it's best that we wait until a new President is in office before appointing a new Justice (so 'the American people can have a say on the matter')

The Democratic counter basically broils down to the fact that it's nuts that we'd leave the appointment unfulfilled for a year.

Personally, I side with the Democrats on this one. Dragging your feet for a year in hopes of some political points is an irresponsible move.

Djehutynakht wrote:The Senate Republicans are currently saying that they think it's best that we wait until a new President is in office before appointing a new Justice (so 'the American people can have a say on the matter')

Also "we should honor Scalia's memory by waiting until the next President to select his replacement". With, uh, no further explanation of how that's 'honoring his memory' that I could see. Think that one was Cruz.

existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

sardia wrote:Officially, Obama has almost a year, I see no reason not to let him have the appointment.

Mitch has already suggested that Obama should defer to the next president. This leaves SCOTUS with the possibility of deadlock. Since the Senate must confirm Mitch can sit on his high horse and shoot the bird at the prez and tell the dems to fuck off. Realpolitik as a pejorative. There is nothing the dems can do assuming Mitch can hold his block together. However you have to see the perverse humor here.

For context, the longest Supreme Court confirmation in history was Brandeis, at 125 days. I don't doubt the Republicans' commitment to obstructionism, but if they do delay until the next presidential term it will be a fucking shitshow.

sardia wrote:Question, why would it be funny Morris? I see only real politik here. Did someone say something that makes this ironic?

Consider the timing. Obama has selected two. Now 9 or so months from a potential Republican takeover in both the legislative and executive, a conservative justice dies. Not a liberal mind you. A conservative. Mitch had to shit his pants. Had a liberal died than at worst the Republicans would have seen it as maintaining the status quo. Now they stand to have a net loss, the two members that Obama has appointed are the youngest to boot. If they refuse to allow him his choice in an election year than their candidate has to defend it. It is so ironic as to be almost unbelievable. Nine or so months of defensive Republicans defending their crippling of SCOTUS.

sardia wrote:Question, why would it be funny Morris? I see only real politik here. Did someone say something that makes this ironic?

Consider the timing. Obama has selected two. Now 9 or so months from a potential Republican takeover in both the legislative and executive, a conservative justice dies. Not a liberal mind you. A conservative. Mitch had to shit his pants. Had a liberal died than at worst the Republicans would have seen it as maintaining the status quo. Now they stand to have a net loss, the two members that Obama has appointed are the youngest to boot. If they refuse to allow him his choice in an election year than their candidate has to defend it. It is so ironic as to be almost unbelievable. Nine or so months of defensive Republicans defending their crippling of SCOTUS.

I think you underestimate how many "unbelievable" things have happened since 2008. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/oba ... sotomayor/Based on current modeling, the best he can hope for is a Breyer type justice, and that's assuming that the GOP doesn't follow through with it's filibuster threat. If I was the GOP, I'd take the political heat in order to stop a liberal, or even moderate justice from being installed. The political models that predict SCOTUS votes are too good now, so you can't sneak candidates in anymore. In addition, the average voter doesn't recognize the importance of the Supreme Court, and doesn't give a shit so long as they get to stick it to the other party.

Lazar wrote:For context, the longest Supreme Court confirmation in history was Brandeis, at 125 days. I don't doubt the Republicans' commitment to obstructionism, but if they do delay until the next presidential term it will be a fucking shitshow.

What was the longest time before nomination? And also, is there precedence for a justice dying/retiring in the last year of a president's term?

sardia wrote: In addition, the average voter doesn't recognize the importance of the Supreme Court, and doesn't give a shit so long as they get to stick it to the other party.

This, I suspect, will energize the Democratic base. But the humor is there no matter. I have a vision of Mitch sitting in his bed crying at the sheer unfairness of Scalia having the temerity to die while Obama was still President.

Some friends of mine said that while they disagreed with his political views, one thing that they appreciated about Scalia was the way he stuck to the letter of the law he upheld. I.e., it's the job of legislators, not judges, to change the law.

In any case, I think the average length of time between a vacancy and a nomination going back as far as like 1800 is only 2-4 mo, so, there's no ground here for anyone stand on saying we need to postpone. I also wonder what happens in the event of a tie - does the Supreme Court not hold any rulings when there's a vacancy?

... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Izawwlgood wrote:Some friends of mine said that while they disagreed with his political views, one thing that they appreciated about Scalia was the way he stuck to the letter of the law he upheld. I.e., it's the job of legislators, not judges, to change the law.

In any case, I think the average length of time between a vacancy and a nomination going back as far as like 1800 is only 2-4 mo, so, there's no ground here for anyone stand on saying we need to postpone. I also wonder what happens in the event of a tie - does the Supreme Court not hold any rulings when there's a vacancy?

It doesn't set a precedent, but the appellate court ruling stands.

Spoiler:

Although rare, 4-4 ties are hardly unheard-of—justices do recuse themselves from time to time. A split decision effectively upholds the ruling of the lower court (presumably a state supreme court). In the event of such a tie, the court typically issues what's known as a per curiam decision. The opinion in such a decision is issued under the court's name, as opposed to consisting of a majority and a minority opinion. Justices, however, may attach dissenting opinions to the per curiam decision if they like—as happened in Bush v. Gore. When a 4-4 deadlock does occur, the case is not deemed to have set any sort of precedent. Tradition holds that the court's per curiam opinion in such ties is usually very, very terse, often consisting of no more than a single sentence: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court."

Here's the problem, there's two avenues to pursue this. You can make bring political bully pulpit pressure, or you can force it via the courts. You can make the court rule in your favor in less than 11 months, but courts are really slow. Maybe ask the current SCOTUS if they would support a nomination, or if they will split along party lines, which means only the appellate court ruling matters. This is assuming the courts bother to pick it up, instead of kicking it back to more gridlock like they usually do.

What about the bully pulpit? Partisan politics has shown a remarkable tolerance for any political heat from the other party. Remember the debt ceiling chicken fights? It was insane but they kept doing it, over and over again. This one is definitely a weak argument. Who knows, maybe the GOP will roll over on this one if Obama sends a well qualified moderate, but the political gains are too tempting. The link below explains all the reasons why Obama should get nothing from the GOP.http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/ninth ... in-scalia/Lastly, does anyone know the political compositions of all the appellate courts? We could be in for a wild ride for the judicial branch this year.

no i feel perfectly sanguine in being glad he is dead. he was in a position of power over a lot of people and he had no problem using that power in ways that made lots of other people dead. respect for the dead is such a stupid concept i have absolutely no desire for people to keep living when they are actively contributing to suffering and death. i hope everyone in positions of power that are actively using those positions to create more suffering and death loses those positions and/or dies. since there was not a whole lot of opportunity for scalia to be removed from his position in other ways i am pretty okay being glad he is dead. i feel not a single shred of guilt over this.

You want to know the future, love? Then wait:I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

jewish_scientist wrote:I disagree with some of his decisions, but I did not want him dead.

I did, or at least I thought I did. I hated him more than any other political figure. His philosophy of jurisprudence--neither an honest activism nor a respectful originalism, but instead a willfully-blind textualism--treated law as if it were a game, and he played that game without the slightest sign of compassion for--or even awareness of--the people he was harming. I considered him a bigot and a hypocrite, even a possible traitor.

But now that he is dead, I feel ashamed of my hatred. He was a greater writer with a powerful intellect. The sort of person who so influences the world that he could be hated by people who had never met him. A man who would stand out from a crowd of millions. A world without Scalia is like a world without serpents, or a world without sharks. It is perhaps a better world, but it is certainly also a poorer one.

When I learned of his death yesterday, I had a reaction that I would never have expected: I wept. Perhaps I did not want him dead after all, whatever I might have believed at the time.

Eh, I come from the cynical world of realpolitik. Scalia played his role well, to advance the agenda of his constituents who selected him. His death starts another cycle of the same old game, who can replace him and how fast. Claiming anything else just makes you a hypocrite.

sardia wrote:What did he do to Kentucky? I thought he always treated his state well. He can bring home pork and be a thorn in the side of Democrats at the same time.

I respect him, I just don't like him. And that is my personal opinion. Probably the best thing for the poorer part of the states in my lifetime has been the Medicade expansion of The Affordable Care Act. He'll undo it with Bevin if he gets his way. However a lot of Kentuckians must like him, they keep electing him.

The filter doesn't like the pejorative version of the Affordable Care Act, which I don't consider a pejorative.

natraj wrote:no i feel perfectly sanguine in being glad he is dead. he was in a position of power over a lot of people and he had no problem using that power in ways that made lots of other people dead. respect for the dead is such a stupid concept i have absolutely no desire for people to keep living when they are actively contributing to suffering and death. i hope everyone in positions of power that are actively using those positions to create more suffering and death loses those positions and/or dies. since there was not a whole lot of opportunity for scalia to be removed from his position in other ways i am pretty okay being glad he is dead. i feel not a single shred of guilt over this.

Out of curiosity, how did you feel about people celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden?

natraj wrote:no i feel perfectly sanguine in being glad he is dead. he was in a position of power over a lot of people and he had no problem using that power in ways that made lots of other people dead. respect for the dead is such a stupid concept i have absolutely no desire for people to keep living when they are actively contributing to suffering and death. i hope everyone in positions of power that are actively using those positions to create more suffering and death loses those positions and/or dies. since there was not a whole lot of opportunity for scalia to be removed from his position in other ways i am pretty okay being glad he is dead. i feel not a single shred of guilt over this.

Out of curiosity, how did you feel about people celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden?

There's a pretty big distinction between being satisfied in your head, and actively being celebratory.

Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

there's also a big difference between being glad that someone is gone from the planet and celebrating murder like? nobody went out and killed antonin scalia i hate pretty much most things the us military has done recently and don't think extrajudicial killing is in any way acceptable (i don't think judicial killing is in any way acceptable, i don't support the death penalty in any case) so these are entirely false equivalences. when terrible people die i don't care. when our government does horrible amoral things i do care.

eta: but like i don't care how people felt about osama bin laden dying in and of itself if that's what you mean? i don't think people have any obligation to pretend that they are mourning for awful people. or pretend to have respect for awful people. i could not care less how people choose to react when people who have caused immense suffering leave the world. but regardless the situations you chose for comparison aren't... actually comparable because the circumstances surrounding their deaths were wildly different and therefore the celebrations of his death also came with a whole lot of nationalistic bs and islamophobic hatred that had nothing to do with osama being a terrible person.

You want to know the future, love? Then wait:I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

Izawwlgood wrote:Some friends of mine said that while they disagreed with his political views, one thing that they appreciated about Scalia was the way he stuck to the letter of the law he upheld. I.e., it's the job of legislators, not judges, to change the law.

I think out of all the current justices, Scalia 100 years from now will be the most read. His impact on Jurisprudence is huge and pretty much singularly brought textualism back to relevancy. Now pretty much every SCOTUS decision addresses textualism on some level. I think Ginsberg's comment to the point of he makes my opinions stronger by pointing out their weaknesses is particularly telling. Whether or not you agree with him, he made the arguments on both sides stronger(which can not be said of the some of the other conservative justices, i.e. Alito and Thomas).

Also he was one of the first Justices to really introduce the Law and Econ movement to the supreme court and address it. I read this by him today from slightly before he became nominated for SCOTUS.

Dark567 wrote:I think out of all the current justices, Scalia 100 years from now will be the most read.

Well yes, and Hitler is the best remembered, and probably most read, 20th century politician. I don't want to Godwin this threat, but I do want to point out that 'being the most read' is not necessarily an endorsement. You might be right about Scalia being the most read of the current justices in a 100 years, but I highly doubt he'll be remembered with anything but scorn and loathing.

Dark567 wrote:His impact on Jurisprudence is huge and pretty much singularly brought textualism back to relevancy.

And textualism is such a ridiculous idea that anybody who even thinks about entertaining the notion should be barred from any legal position, forever. I do admit that it is impressive that Scalia managed to convince so many people of his utter madness, but that doesn't change the fact that it is utter madness.

And I don't believe for a second that Scalia, or anyone, takes textualism seriously. It's pure hypocrisy, a convenient excuse to push his agenda. It's not like he stuck to it when it didn't suit his agenda.

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister